The point here, isn't necessarily what was done in the past for it's own sake, but the fact that Roman Catholics try to defend it, or often try to use it, or consequences of it to make themselves appear to be the superior church...

The only people I see using things are the Eastern Orthodox who constantly bring up the sacking of Constantinople and other such things from the past. I don't need to appeal to history to try to prove anything about my Church. I follow my Church because I believe it has the correct beliefs. That's good enough for me.

You know, this back and forth about sins committed by long dead priests, bishops and popes really rubs me the wrong way.

All of the founding fathers of the United States who signed the Declaration of Independence came from colonies where slavery was lawful, a majority of them probably did not support abolition and many found a moral and biblical basis to support the practice in that they were slave owners. Should we hold the modern Presidents liable and accountable for the sins of Washington et al? That sounds like the kind of intellectual stupidity that I heard on my college campuses during the 1970's.

Now, I firmly believe that in order to avoid repeating the errors of the past, you have to know history. But, to avoid becoming brain dead ideologues like our enemies in the world of Muslim extremists (those who want to restore the Caliphate and retake Cordoba) you also have to look at the world through the lenses of the time in which WE live and judge people and institutions by how they conduct themselves now. (Again, you can't ignore the past but you should be consumed by it either.)

There are plenty of solid, theologically based grounds to allow us to challenge the beliefs and doctrines of the Roman church. Arguing round and round about the actions and intents of those long dead is counterproductive and precludes one from advancing a strong and defensible position with which to advance in defense of the truth of Orthodoxy.

Thank you for that. A truly refreshing point of view and comment.

Yes but soon other advocates of this site will say he is betraying the Orthodox Faith by being much too brainy and using damnable scholastic techniques with his use of reason and such...

Want to bet on that? podkarpatska is no light weight. Nothing he would post would be dismissed in such way by anyone in their right mind.

Might want to sit tight for a while before attempts at prognostication.

The point here, isn't necessarily what was done in the past for it's own sake, but the fact that Roman Catholics try to defend it, or often try to use it, or consequences of it to make themselves appear to be the superior church...

The only people I see using things are the Eastern Orthodox who constantly bring up the sacking of Constantinople and other such things from the past. I don't need to appeal to history to try to prove anything about my Church. I follow my Church because I believe it has the correct beliefs. That's good enough for me.

REAL WORLD ALERT!!!! WE INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR THIS IMPORTANT REAL WORLD INFO INTRUSION> In my 58 years of being Orthodox, I never once heard anyone at home or at the parish discuss this. Having been betrayed by their bishops when they were Greek Catholic and having had to leave the parishes they founded when they came to America, they had plenty to say about the Roman Church and the Pope, but the crusades and the sack of Constantinople were not on the radar. Now, to be fair, while at college it was the kind of topic that students went on and on about at the predecssor to the OCF on campus, but that was the only time in my life I came across this with such passion until Al Gore invented the internet. NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED POLEMICS, ERR , PROGRAMMING.....

You know, this back and forth about sins committed by long dead priests, bishops and popes really rubs me the wrong way.

All of the founding fathers of the United States who signed the Declaration of Independence came from colonies where slavery was lawful, a majority of them probably did not support abolition and many found a moral and biblical basis to support the practice in that they were slave owners. Should we hold the modern Presidents liable and accountable for the sins of Washington et al? That sounds like the kind of intellectual stupidity that I heard on my college campuses during the 1970's.

Now, I firmly believe that in order to avoid repeating the errors of the past, you have to know history. But, to avoid becoming brain dead ideologues like our enemies in the world of Muslim extremists (those who want to restore the Caliphate and retake Cordoba) you also have to look at the world through the lenses of the time in which WE live and judge people and institutions by how they conduct themselves now. (Again, you can't ignore the past but you should be consumed by it either.)

There are plenty of solid, theologically based grounds to allow us to challenge the beliefs and doctrines of the Roman church. Arguing round and round about the actions and intents of those long dead is counterproductive and precludes one from advancing a strong and defensible position with which to advance in defense of the truth of Orthodoxy.

Thank you for that. A truly refreshing point of view and comment.

Yes but soon other advocates of this site will say he is betraying the Orthodox Faith by being much too brainy and using damnable scholastic techniques with his use of reason and such...

Just remember that scholasticism run amok led to Hegel and then to Marx. Having one's brain frozen is the usually the problem when reason leads one to fervid, unyielding ideology. One has to let some light in so that one can understand those whose opinion's differ from yours.

One other thing, I did grow up with Greek friends whose grandparents were dispossessed from their ancient lands following the first world war. To them, the loss of Constantinople was as real and vivid in their lives as were the Pilgrims and Jamestown in most young American kids of that era. This makes sense as these events were fairly close in historical time and they formed the basis of much cultural and civic mythology. Likewise to many Muslim children today, the loss of the Moorish Kingdom is part of their cultural mythology. I am not haying history is not important, just that you have to understand its context in order to harness its power.

The point here, isn't necessarily what was done in the past for it's own sake, but the fact that Roman Catholics try to defend it, or often try to use it, or consequences of it to make themselves appear to be the superior church...

Eh?....So then we re-write history to suit our needs. Back to those Soviet-Orthodox tactics...

You know, this back and forth about sins committed by long dead priests, bishops and popes really rubs me the wrong way.

I am not fond of re-writing history either. As a good man once said:

"Just remember that scholasticism run amok led to Hegel and then to Marx. Having one's brain frozen is the usually the problem when reason leads one to fervid, unyielding ideology. One has to let some light in so that one can understand those whose opinion's differ from yours."

The point here, isn't necessarily what was done in the past for it's own sake, but the fact that Roman Catholics try to defend it, or often try to use it, or consequences of it to make themselves appear to be the superior church...

Eh?....So then we re-write history to suit our needs. Back to those Soviet-Orthodox tactics...

Well...ok then...

A perfect example of why the Vatican remains guilty for Brest-Lvov, and why many returning to Orthodoxy saw 1947 as the righting of historic wrongs.

You should aim better, EM.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 01:49:02 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Have you ever compared the Novus Ordo to the Protestant Lutheran Liturgy of 1904?

Specifically, what do you have against the Lutheran liturgy and why do you think it is defective ? Also, don't Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox have comparable views on the place of the Pope of Rome in the Church?

LOL. No. For one thing, the Lutheran Catechism doesn't deal with the pope of rome (nor need it), and in Orthodoxy he's not any different from any other patriarch, or rather schismatic/heretical patriarch to be precise.

I thought that Orthodoxy considered him to be an unbaptised layperson.

Amazing as it may sound, we go about our lives without thinking of him.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Have you ever compared the Novus Ordo to the Protestant Lutheran Liturgy of 1904?

Specifically, what do you have against the Lutheran liturgy and why do you think it is defective ? Also, don't Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox have comparable views on the place of the Pope of Rome in the Church?

LOL. No. For one thing, the Lutheran Catechism doesn't deal with the pope of rome (nor need it), and in Orthodoxy he's not any different from any other patriarch, or rather schismatic/heretical patriarch to be precise.

I thought that Orthodoxy considered him to be an unbaptised layperson.

Amazing as it may sound, we go about our lives without thinking of him.

I thought that the First Crusade was called because the Orthodox emperor Alexios I asked Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist the Muslims who were invading the Byzantine Empire.

you thought wrong. Your supreme pontiff Gregory VII promoted the idea in 1074, before Alexis took the throne.

Gregory did nothing more than to show his love and compassion for the Orthodox Christians who were being overrun:"Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all who are willing to defend the Christian faith, greeting and apostolic benediction.

We hereby inform you that the bearer of this letter, on his recent return from across the sea [from Palestine], came to Rome to visit us. He repeated what we had heard from many others, that a pagan race had overcome the Christians (Greeks) and with horrible cruelty had devastated everything almost to the walls of Constantinople, and were now governing the conquered lands with tyrannical violence, and that they had slain many thousands of Christians as if they were but sheep. If we love God and wish to be recognized as Christians, we should be filled with grief at the misfortune of this great empire [the Greek] and the murder of so many Christians (Greeks). But simply to grieve is not our whole duty. The example of our Redeemer and the bond of fraternal love demand that we should lay down our lives to liberate them. "Because he has laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren," [1 John 3:16]. Know, therefore, that we are trusting in the mercy of God and in the power of his might and that we are striving in all possible ways and making preparations to render aid to the Christian empire [the Greek] as quickly as possible. Therefore we beseech you by the faith in which you are united through Christ in the adoption of the sons of God, and by the authority of St. Peter, prince of apostles, we admonish you that you be moved to proper compassion by the wounds and blood of your brethren and the danger of the aforesaid empire and that, for the sake of Christ, you undertake the difficult task of bearing aid to your brethren [the Greeks]. "

Nothing happened until the Orthodox emperor Alexios begged the Pope of Rome, Urban II, to send in an army to help him. The Pope, having mercy and sympathy and great affection and love for the Orthodox people of the Byzantine empire, went way out of his way to send Roman Catholic soldiers to die for the Orthodox of the Byzantine empire at the request of the Byzantine Orthodox emperor Alexios.

God save us from such mercy, sympathy, great affection and love.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Have you ever compared the Novus Ordo to the Protestant Lutheran Liturgy of 1904?

Specifically, what do you have against the Lutheran liturgy and why do you think it is defective ? Also, don't Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox have comparable views on the place of the Pope of Rome in the Church?

LOL. No. For one thing, the Lutheran Catechism doesn't deal with the pope of rome (nor need it), and in Orthodoxy he's not any different from any other patriarch, or rather schismatic/heretical patriarch to be precise.

I thought that Orthodoxy considered him to be an unbaptised layperson.

Amazing as it may sound, we go about our lives without thinking of him.

Except for you who talks about our Supreme Pontiff more than we do.

Because Ultramontanists come selling his snake oil.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This whole history discussion is just ridiculous. "Re-write history to suit our needs"...as opposed to what, exactly? Do people here really believe that history is self-interpreting? (Doesn't that remind you of a Protestant outlook on a particular historical book, folks?) That's just silly. Reading Roman Catholic historians on the Crusades (at least from before the age of PC and ecumenism run amok), you could come away with the idea that nothing negative ever come of them (other than the eventual loss of the territories conquered, of course). Obviously reading that same history from an Orthodox or a Muslim perspective yields a very different conclusion.

Everybody has an interpretation of history they align with, even when the hard facts (e.g., dates, places, names) are agreed upon. Get over yourselves.

Have you ever compared the Novus Ordo to the Protestant Lutheran Liturgy of 1904?

Specifically, what do you have against the Lutheran liturgy and why do you think it is defective ? Also, don't Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox have comparable views on the place of the Pope of Rome in the Church?

LOL. No. For one thing, the Lutheran Catechism doesn't deal with the pope of rome (nor need it), and in Orthodoxy he's not any different from any other patriarch, or rather schismatic/heretical patriarch to be precise.

I thought that Orthodoxy considered him to be an unbaptised layperson.

Amazing as it may sound, we go about our lives without thinking of him.

Have you ever compared the Novus Ordo to the Protestant Lutheran Liturgy of 1904?

Specifically, what do you have against the Lutheran liturgy and why do you think it is defective ? Also, don't Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox have comparable views on the place of the Pope of Rome in the Church?

LOL. No. For one thing, the Lutheran Catechism doesn't deal with the pope of rome (nor need it), and in Orthodoxy he's not any different from any other patriarch, or rather schismatic/heretical patriarch to be precise.

I thought that Orthodoxy considered him to be an unbaptised layperson.

Amazing as it may sound, we go about our lives without thinking of him.

Except for you who talks about our Supreme Pontiff more than we do.

DO NOT READ THIS IF THE REAL WORLD BOTHERS YOUR PRECONCEPTIONS>>>>Well, I will reiterate what I said about Constantinople We don't fixate on the Pope or popes in general. Reading this thread might give you that impression, but... out in the world we never talk about him or the papacy as a general rule. The only time I heard the pope's name mentioned in church was on the passing of Pope John Paul II as the priest mentioned his historical significance, his being a Slav and his relationship to Eastern Christianity through his Greek Catholic grandmother. Sorry to disappoint you Wyatt, but we just don't play pin the mitre on the pope!

Have you ever compared the Novus Ordo to the Protestant Lutheran Liturgy of 1904?

Specifically, what do you have against the Lutheran liturgy and why do you think it is defective ? Also, don't Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox have comparable views on the place of the Pope of Rome in the Church?

LOL. No. For one thing, the Lutheran Catechism doesn't deal with the pope of rome (nor need it), and in Orthodoxy he's not any different from any other patriarch, or rather schismatic/heretical patriarch to be precise.

I thought that Orthodoxy considered him to be an unbaptised layperson.

Amazing as it may sound, we go about our lives without thinking of him.

Except for you who talks about our Supreme Pontiff more than we do.

DO NOT READ THIS IF THE REAL WORLD BOTHERS YOUR PRECONCEPTIONS>>>>Well, I will reiterate what I said about Constantinople We don't fixate on the Pope or popes in general. Reading this thread might give you that impression, but... out in the world we never talk about him or the papacy as a general rule. The only time I heard the pope's name mentioned in church was on the passing of Pope John Paul II as the priest mentioned his historical significance, his being a Slav and his relationship to Eastern Christianity through his Greek Catholic grandmother. Sorry to disappoint you Wyatt, but we just don't play pin the mitre on the pope!

I was actually talking about ialmisry specifically, not Eastern Orthodox Christians in general. He does talk about the Pope an awful lot, which is strange since he claims that the Pope is so central to our faith, yet we don't talk about him nearly as much as he does.

This whole history discussion is just ridiculous. "Re-write history to suit our needs"...as opposed to what, exactly? Do people here really believe that history is self-interpreting? (Doesn't that remind you of a Protestant outlook on a particular historical book, folks?) That's just silly. Reading Roman Catholic historians on the Crusades (at least from before the age of PC and ecumenism run amok), you could come away with the idea that nothing negative ever come of them (other than the eventual loss of the territories conquered, of course). Obviously reading that same history from an Orthodox or a Muslim perspective yields a very different conclusion.

Everybody has an interpretation of history they align with, even when the hard facts (e.g., dates, places, names) are agreed upon. Get over yourselves.

I am not talking about interpretation. I am talking about leaving entire episodes "outside" of the telling of the story. That is not quite what people...most people...mean by "interpretation."

If you really do think about it, without the Fourth Crusade, the sack of Constantinople wouldn't have happened. Thus, it is probably likely that even today, much of Turkey would still be both Orthodox and Greek.

(oh, and not to mention that the West wouldn't have had as big of a "renaissance" either)

So essentially, yes, something that long ago does have a major impact today.

If you really do think about it, without the Fourth Crusade, the sack of Constantinople wouldn't have happened. Thus, it is probably likely that even today, much of Turkey would still be both Orthodox and Greek.

(oh, and not to mention that the West wouldn't have had as big of a "renaissance" either)

So essentially, yes, something that long ago does have a major impact today.

Alternate history is a pointless exercise. It didn't happen......if J.E.B. Stuart and his cavalry hadn't been riding up around Harrisburg and had seized the high ground on the first day of Gettysburg, Meade's Army of the Potomac might have been repelled by Pickett's Charge ........So what?

It may be interesting to discuss at a coffee bar or a wine and cheese party, but alternate history will not serve you in any way dealing with the world as we find it.

The point here, isn't necessarily what was done in the past for it's own sake, but the fact that Roman Catholics try to defend it, or often try to use it, or consequences of it to make themselves appear to be the superior church...

If forgiveness is asked for but not forthcoming from those of whom it is asked, what does that say about those who will not forgive? (I didn't say "forget", but "forgive". Which reminds me that a priest once told me that if we truly forgive we will no longer need to remember that which we forgive and it will eventually fade from memory altogether.)

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

The point here, isn't necessarily what was done in the past for it's own sake, but the fact that Roman Catholics try to defend it, or often try to use it, or consequences of it to make themselves appear to be the superior church...

If forgiveness is asked for but not forthcoming from those of whom it is asked, what does that say about those who will not forgive? (I didn't say "forget", but "forgive". Which reminds me that a priest once told me that if we truly forgive we will no longer need to remember that which we forgive and it will eventually fade from memory altogether.)

This is a great concluding thought for this thread which has really gone off the old rails!

I love how so many Eastern Orthodox gripe about the sacking of Constantinople as if it affects them personally.

We mourn for our mothers and fathers in the Holy Faith who lost their lives.

Do you like the Novus Ordo, Wyatt?Have you seen a copy of the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904?

What specifically do you have against the prayers of the Lutherans? What is wrong with their prayers?

Also, I wonder how it can be said that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is based on the Lutheran liturgy when Lutherans do not believe in the sacrificial nature of the Holy Eucharist and yet the Roman Catholic Church, even in its current Liturgy, explicitly professes this belief?

I love how so many Eastern Orthodox gripe about the sacking of Constantinople as if it affects them personally.

We mourn for our mothers and fathers in the Holy Faith who lost their lives.

Do you like the Novus Ordo, Wyatt?Have you seen a copy of the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904?

What specifically do you have against the prayers of the Lutherans? What is wrong with their prayers?

The Lutheran Hymnal of 1904 used to be considered heretical by the Catholic Church.Then they copied it with a few modifications and turned it into the Novus Ordo.After I read those striking similarities first hand, I headed East.

The Lutheran Hymnal of 1904 used to be considered heretical by the Catholic Church.Then they copied it with a few modifications and turned it into the Novus Ordo.After I read those striking similarities first hand, I headed East.

So? Don't Western Rite Orthodox parishes use a liturgy which is a modified version of the Anglican liturgy?

I love how so many Eastern Orthodox gripe about the sacking of Constantinople as if it affects them personally.

We mourn for our mothers and fathers in the Holy Faith who lost their lives.

Do you like the Novus Ordo, Wyatt?Have you seen a copy of the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904?

What specifically do you have against the prayers of the Lutherans? What is wrong with their prayers?

The Lutheran Hymnal of 1904 used to be considered heretical by the Catholic Church.Then they copied it with a few modifications and turned it into the Novus Ordo.After I read those striking similarities first hand, I headed East.

I find it strange that Catholics would so readily stick up for Lutheranism, even going so far as to wonder what exactly is so objectionable about it. How things have changed in modern times.

I don't stick up for Lutheranism and will be the first one to call a spade a spade when I see something objectionable in Lutheranism being proclaimed. However, assuming that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (what some call the "Novus Ordo") is actually based on the Lutheran liturgy (though this is the first I have heard of it), it is quite possible that we modified it in a way that made it totally orthodox for Roman Catholic usage...much the same way that Orthodoxy modified the Anglican liturgy to make it fit to use for their Western Rite parishes.

The Lutheran Hymnal of 1904 used to be considered heretical by the Catholic Church.Then they copied it with a few modifications and turned it into the Novus Ordo.

No.

This portion of the thread would be amusing if it were not so goofy.

I go to spend time in the parish of my spiritual father who is an eastern Catholic priest. Many years ago, another regular summer visitor there was a Lutheran pastor, who would remark at how similar the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was to her own liturgy.

I find it strange that Catholics would so readily stick up for Lutheranism, even going so far as to wonder what exactly is so objectionable about it. How things have changed in modern times.

I don't stick up for Lutheranism and will be the first one to call a spade a spade when I see something objectionable in Lutheranism being proclaimed. However, assuming that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (what some call the "Novus Ordo") is actually based on the Lutheran liturgy (though this is the first I have heard of it), it is quite possible that we modified it in a way that made it totally orthodox for Roman Catholic usage...much the same way that Orthodoxy modified the Anglican liturgy to make it fit to use for their Western Rite parishes.

The Vatican, however, doesn't have a history of making such modifications. I'm not sure, for instance, what changes it has made for its Anglican Use personal prelature.

I'm not old enough to remember the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904, whatever that was-Lutherans were not, and are not, in one jurisdiction and thus have nothing like the EO Euchalogion or WRO Missal, let alone the Missale Romanum. I think we had the American Lutheran Hymnal of 1930, before taking the Lutheran Book of Worship (the Green Book) just around when I left. Since they lack an epiclesis IIRC, they would be "totally orthodox for Roman Catholic usage."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find it strange that Catholics would so readily stick up for Lutheranism, even going so far as to wonder what exactly is so objectionable about it. How things have changed in modern times.

I don't stick up for Lutheranism and will be the first one to call a spade a spade when I see something objectionable in Lutheranism being proclaimed. However, assuming that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (what some call the "Novus Ordo") is actually based on the Lutheran liturgy (though this is the first I have heard of it), it is quite possible that we modified it in a way that made it totally orthodox for Roman Catholic usage...much the same way that Orthodoxy modified the Anglican liturgy to make it fit to use for their Western Rite parishes.

The Vatican, however, doesn't have a history of making such modifications. I'm not sure, for instance, what changes it has made for its Anglican Use personal prelature.

I'm not old enough to remember the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904, whatever that was-Lutherans were not, and are not, in one jurisdiction and thus have nothing like the EO Euchalogion or WRO Missal, let alone the Missale Romanum. I think we had the American Lutheran Hymnal of 1930, before taking the Lutheran Book of Worship (the Green Book) just around when I left. Since they lack an epiclesis IIRC, they would be "totally orthodox for Roman Catholic usage."

I went to a Lutheran school from sixth to eighth grade, though I do not know what book they were using at the time. I do know that when I was in RCIA and going to Mass for the first time I noticed similarities between the Mass and a Lutheran liturgy, though I just chalked it up to the fact that the Lutherans were the first to break from us, so there would naturally be many similarities because they took a lot from our tradition with them. However, you can't really compare the Lutheran communion rite to our Liturgy of the Eucharist. In the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at least, they basically just say the Words of Institution and then distribute communion...which is very stripped down and basic compared to the Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite. They also mention nothing about their eucharist being a sacrifice, which is another major difference between the two liturgies.

The Lutheran Hymnal of 1904 used to be considered heretical by the Catholic Church.Then they copied it with a few modifications and turned it into the Novus Ordo.

No.

This portion of the thread would be amusing if it were not so goofy.

not so goofy. Though I don't know what 1904 Lutheran hymnal is being spoken of, the service of our old hymnal and the new Lutheran Book of Worship was comparable to the Novus Ordo. The TLM, hard to tell, as at the time I had only been to one (they had to get special dispensation for it).

I go to spend time in the parish of my spiritual father who is an eastern Catholic priest. Many years ago, another regular summer visitor there was a Lutheran pastor, who would remark at how similar the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was to her own liturgy.

Otherwise, the usual Lutheran services bear no resemblance to the DL of St. John Chrysostom. I remember friends coming to Church, whose sons had been married by the Vatican, who expected to find something familiar as they had at the mass. No such luck (except the collection plate).

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find it strange that Catholics would so readily stick up for Lutheranism, even going so far as to wonder what exactly is so objectionable about it. How things have changed in modern times.

I don't stick up for Lutheranism and will be the first one to call a spade a spade when I see something objectionable in Lutheranism being proclaimed. However, assuming that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (what some call the "Novus Ordo") is actually based on the Lutheran liturgy (though this is the first I have heard of it), it is quite possible that we modified it in a way that made it totally orthodox for Roman Catholic usage...much the same way that Orthodoxy modified the Anglican liturgy to make it fit to use for their Western Rite parishes.

The Vatican, however, doesn't have a history of making such modifications. I'm not sure, for instance, what changes it has made for its Anglican Use personal prelature.

I'm not old enough to remember the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904, whatever that was-Lutherans were not, and are not, in one jurisdiction and thus have nothing like the EO Euchalogion or WRO Missal, let alone the Missale Romanum. I think we had the American Lutheran Hymnal of 1930, before taking the Lutheran Book of Worship (the Green Book) just around when I left. Since they lack an epiclesis IIRC, they would be "totally orthodox for Roman Catholic usage."

I went to a Lutheran school from sixth to eighth grade, though I do not know what book they were using at the time. I do know that when I was in RCIA and going to Mass for the first time I noticed similarities between the Mass and a Lutheran liturgy, though I just chalked it up to the fact that the Lutherans were the first to break from us, so there would naturally be many similarities because they took a lot from our tradition with them. However, you can't really compare the Lutheran communion rite to our Liturgy of the Eucharist. In the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at least, they basically just say the Words of Institution and then distribute communion...which is very stripped down and basic compared to the Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite. They also mention nothing about their eucharist being a sacrifice, which is another major difference between the two liturgies.

I can't recall if I was ever at a LCMS communion. My mother always complained of them being "so Catholic"-her father's family were long time members. LBW service of the ELCA? Yeah, it's pretty much the Novus Ordo.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

^My brother was a guest at the installation of the new pastor at a local Lutheran Church recently, I think that it was Missouri Synod. He knew that the next door Slovak Lutheran Church was superficially very "high Church", quasi-Roman Catholic in appearance, but he was surprised at this service which he said resembled a novus ordo Mass. Is this the norm?

^My brother was a guest at the installation of the new pastor at a local Lutheran Church recently, I think that it was Missouri Synod. He knew that the next door Slovak Lutheran Church was superficially very "high Church", quasi-Roman Catholic in appearance, but he was surprised at this service which he said resembled a novus ordo Mass. Is this the norm?

In the ELCA it is. In the Church of Sweden, it is like the Anglican "high church." The CoS claims apostolic succession, and its archbishop, because of that, attended but would not participate in the installation of the "Presiding Bishop" of the ELCA, David Preuss (formerly president of the American Lutheran Church, to which I belonged: the ALC in 1980 had switched the title to "presiding bishop." The Lutheran Church in America, another former of the ELCA, was generally more liturgical and rumored by the ALC to have incense and genuflection in the aisles and kneelers (the ALC knelt on the floor): its background was more Swedish and Finish (which also claims apostolic succession) than the ALC.

Btw, I just learned that the ELCA has the equivalent of the OCA's 'ethnic dioceses', the Slovak Zion Synod: it being the ELCA, it has a woman presiding "bishop." I also just learned some specifics of the formation of the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, which was the third partner in the ELCA, which I knew a general idea of (it being before my time): an argument over "whether the Scriptures are the norm of our faith and life or whether the Gospel alone is that norm." See what sola scriptura and rejection of Tradition will get you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminexthe Missouri Synod (LCMS) went "with Scripture"/sola scriptura. The liberals went "with the Gospel" (makes it easily to touchy-feely), consolidating the LCMS conservative bent, and the ELCA liberal spiral.

The LCMS has been liturgical (formed by dissidents from the Calvinizing Prussian Unions), and is fighting (perhaps a losing) battle with "contemporary" evangelical worship (brought in perhaps from the similarities with the conservatism of the "born again" types).

« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 10:21:36 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

^My brother was a guest at the installation of the new pastor at a local Lutheran Church recently, I think that it was Missouri Synod. He knew that the next door Slovak Lutheran Church was superficially very "high Church", quasi-Roman Catholic in appearance, but he was surprised at this service which he said resembled a novus ordo Mass. Is this the norm?

In the ELCA it is. In the Church of Sweden, it is like the Anglican "high church." The CoS claims apostolic succession, and its archbishop, because of that, attended but would not participate in the installation of the "Presiding Bishop" of the ELCA, David Preuss (formerly president of the American Lutheran Church, to which I belonged: the ALC in 1980 had switched the title to "presiding bishop." The Lutheran Church in America, another former of the ELCA, was generally more liturgical and rumored by the ALC to have incense and genuflection in the aisles and kneelers (the ALC knelt on the floor): its background was more Swedish and Finish (which also claims apostolic succession) than the ALC.

Btw, I just learned that the ELCA has the equivalent of the OCA's 'ethnic dioceses', the Slovak Zion Synod: it being the ELCA, it has a woman presiding "bishop." I also just learned some specifics of the formation of the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, which was the third partner in the ELCA, which I knew a general idea of (it being before my time): an argument over "whether the Scriptures are the norm of our faith and life or whether the Gospel alone is that norm." See what sola scriptura and rejection of Tradition will get you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminexthe Missouri Synod (LCMS) went "with Scripture"/sola scriptura. The liberals went "with the Gospel" (makes it easily to touchy-feely), consolidating the LCMS conservative bent, and the ELCA liberal spiral.

The LCMS has been liturgical (formed by dissidents from the Calvinizing Prussian Unions), and is fighting (perhaps a losing) battle with "contemporary" evangelical worship (brought in perhaps from the similarities with the conservatism of the "born again" types).

It's interesting to me to hear of Lutheran churches that put any kind of emphasis on Apostolic Succession, as it certainly did not have a role in the LCMS as far as I could tell. I went through three years of the required religion class when I was a student in Lutheran school and never once heard Apostolic Succession being mentioned. Even though the LCMS doesn't mention it (nor does Luther's Small Catechism) the Lutheran clergy still believes they have the power, through Christ, to forgive sins. I found this part interesting that they believe in all the authority and charisms of the succession, but not the succession itself.

All the gestures and ceremony of the LCMS made a lot more sense once I became Catholic. Looking back, I am not sure why Lutherans bow towards the front of the sanctuary (though not genuflecting, at least not in my experience) since they do not reserve their eucharist and do not believe in a real presence that lasts after the service is over. It seems that they kept the ceremony and gestures of Catholicism but not the meaning behind them.

^My brother was a guest at the installation of the new pastor at a local Lutheran Church recently, I think that it was Missouri Synod. He knew that the next door Slovak Lutheran Church was superficially very "high Church", quasi-Roman Catholic in appearance, but he was surprised at this service which he said resembled a novus ordo Mass. Is this the norm?

In the ELCA it is. In the Church of Sweden, it is like the Anglican "high church." The CoS claims apostolic succession, and its archbishop, because of that, attended but would not participate in the installation of the "Presiding Bishop" of the ELCA, David Preuss (formerly president of the American Lutheran Church, to which I belonged: the ALC in 1980 had switched the title to "presiding bishop." The Lutheran Church in America, another former of the ELCA, was generally more liturgical and rumored by the ALC to have incense and genuflection in the aisles and kneelers (the ALC knelt on the floor): its background was more Swedish and Finish (which also claims apostolic succession) than the ALC.

Btw, I just learned that the ELCA has the equivalent of the OCA's 'ethnic dioceses', the Slovak Zion Synod: it being the ELCA, it has a woman presiding "bishop." I also just learned some specifics of the formation of the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, which was the third partner in the ELCA, which I knew a general idea of (it being before my time): an argument over "whether the Scriptures are the norm of our faith and life or whether the Gospel alone is that norm." See what sola scriptura and rejection of Tradition will get you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminexthe Missouri Synod (LCMS) went "with Scripture"/sola scriptura. The liberals went "with the Gospel" (makes it easily to touchy-feely), consolidating the LCMS conservative bent, and the ELCA liberal spiral.

The LCMS has been liturgical (formed by dissidents from the Calvinizing Prussian Unions), and is fighting (perhaps a losing) battle with "contemporary" evangelical worship (brought in perhaps from the similarities with the conservatism of the "born again" types).

It's interesting to me to hear of Lutheran churches that put any kind of emphasis on Apostolic Succession, as it certainly did not have a role in the LCMS as far as I could tell. I went through three years of the required religion class when I was a student in Lutheran school and never once heard Apostolic Succession being mentioned.

Even though the LCMS doesn't mention it (nor does Luther's Small Catechism) the Lutheran clergy still believes they have the power, through Christ, to forgive sins. I found this part interesting that they believe in all the authority and charisms of the succession, but not the succession itself.

The part about confession and the power of the keys is in the catechism, but perhaps not gone over very thoroughly as the rest, as the office is somewhat in disuse (the Sunday service starts with a general absolution, many feel no need beyond that). In the Large Catechism Luther called it the third sacrament, and the Augsburg Confession retains it, as generally in the Book of Concord, but it is generally seen as subsumed under baptism.

All the gestures and ceremony of the LCMS made a lot more sense once I became Catholic. Looking back, I am not sure why Lutherans bow towards the front of the sanctuary (though not genuflecting, at least not in my experience) since they do not reserve their eucharist and do not believe in a real presence that lasts after the service is over.

Some do. I did, and IIRC, so too Punch. I remember looking at the altar guide that dealt with the issue. The Real Presence not lasting is one thing the service of receiption into Orthodoxy required me to renounce as a former Lutheran.

It seems that they kept the ceremony and gestures of Catholicism but not the meaning behind them.

They reinterpret them to suit their own invented dogmas, like their sibling the Vatican.

Btw, I just learned that I did go to LCMS service at least once, but that the German service. It wasn't too different from the ALC service I knew.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 01:02:32 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth